Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Grypd · 2004-12-17 17:12:25

At the moment the EU is certainly an economic creature but I think momentum and a bit of push will make it more a political power. With its plan to create an EU police and army and with the constitution coming up its likely to either go superstate or to break apart.

I reserve comment on which i would prefer

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-17 22:19:12

At the moment the EU is certainly an economic creature but I think momentum and a bit of push will make it more a political power. With its plan to create an EU police and army and with the constitution coming up its likely to either go superstate or to break apart.
I reserve comment on which i would prefer

The day I see a EU police car on the roads around here is the day I'll be booking plane tickets away from the EU.

In your two options superstate or break apart - I'm opting for the break apart one :up: I'm all for being friendly and cooperating with other countries I just don't want them ruling my country.

Graeme

Gennaro · 2004-12-22 02:53:02

In your two options superstate or break apart - I'm opting for the break apart one :up: I'm all for being friendly and cooperating with other countries I just don't want them ruling my country.

Personally, I don't look at it exactly in that way. To me, almost anything would be better than what's in power in for example this country or that has any resonable chance of coming to power. Looked at in the long perspective, it would probably be better for the Swedes to be occupied by the Russians than to carry on as now, since at least Putin wouldn't continue to pursue a policy of auto-extermination.

Speaking about the EU, my thinking starts with making a sharp distinction between state and nation. As long as the state is benefitting and protecting the nation, the composition or origin of the political body is of less importance. The great advantage of the EU is that the common market is big enough to counteract economic globalization provided protectionist policies were pursued. On the other hand, I fear for the new constitution and its take on freedom of speech matters. The way it seems to be aimed in regards to "hate laws" and similar is tantamount to laying the foundations of a "Ministry of Truth".

Turkey would probably be okay if the country was restricted to Istanbul and Thrace. I have nothing against the historical Young Turks and their program of modernization. Nevertheless, as far as I know, the countryside in Anatolia is still just another part of the Muslim world to a major extent, with everything it entails in regards to confusing politics with religion, oppression of women, unassimilatory Islam etc. I don't want a Muslim bridgehead in Europe, an officially recognized one even less. Besides, they need as an absolute basic to sort out their differences with the Kurds. A conflict that can only really be solved by ceasing part of the country and erecting a Kurdish nation state. Otherwise, it would be a conflict the European Union would only stand to inherit.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-22 07:19:57

So I'm driving home yesterday, listening to Canadian radio, when they start running an interview with a woman opposing the introduction of Sharia law in Ontario. "WTF?" I think, Islamic law in Canada? Surely my brothers in the Great White North, even if they do tend toward PC pinko-think a bit too frequently, can't possibly have have dived that far off the deep end.

But sure enough... ???

There's a push to allow Islamic law binding arbitration for certain issues, primarily divorce, inheritance and child custody issues.

Eyebrows raise in suspicion...

Just a few links with comments, not trying to be concise or objective. Up front, I think it's a bad idea.

http://www.northernontario.org/Sharia/S … aria_2.htm

Ali and friends may be willing to start with personal family law, but it won’t end there. In fact, Ali makes his case that Islamic punishment for blasphemy and apostasy – death – is not only reasonable in Islamic countries, but in Canada, too. He makes the argument that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would accept this (the italicized phrases are Ali’s):
It is our position … that the limits prescribed by Islamic law, with regards to blasphemy/apostasy, do satisfy both the Charter requirements: namely (i) the Islamic limits are reasonable limits, and are (ii) demonstrably justified within the meaning of Section 1 of the Charter on these grounds: a) The provision of the Preamble regarding the supremacy of God, b) the constitutional obligation to interpreted (sic) in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians, c) that over one billion people worldwide consider these limits to the freedom of speech/expression to be reasonable, d) (i) what such a large segment of the Canadian minority believes as a precept of their faith/religion ought to be fully recognized if the Charter’s provision respecting freedom of religion are to have any real meaning. (ii) Adherence to Islamic principles in this context, ought to be accepted as sufficient enough to satisfy the Charter Requirement of demonstrable justification. Recognition of Islamic standards of reasonable limits on the freedom of speech does not necessarily entail any obligation to enforce the Islamic punishment for blasphemy/apostasy within the Canadian jurisdiction. (Ali, Apostasy)
The punishment Ali is arguing for is death. He is using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to suggest that Muslims in Canada should be subject to death for either apostasy or blasphemy, although he is so open-minded as to suggest that Canadian Muslims would not be obligated to kill one of their own.

Fear-mongering? Maybe, but there are other issues to contend with.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as … 004_pg7_46
]http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...._46

Marilou McPhedran, counsel for the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, labelled Boyd’s report “naive” in its assumptions that Muslim women would have the same choices as other women. She said many women who could be affected are recent immigrants who might not speak English and are not given a true choice in how a divorce might be settled.

Okay, that's screwy on so many levels... I don't know what's worse, the acceptance of the idea that Muslim women having the same freedoms as others is "naive" or the total lack of questioning of why Canada admits immigrants who can't speak either official language and have no clue about their rights, obligations and responsibilities under Canadian law.

But hold on,

“It’s a model for the whole world to see how Sharia law can be used in a Western society,” Mumtaz Ali said in a newspaper interview, adding that while Sharia is a misnomer in terms of the type of family disputes at issue, it is the term most people recognise and associate with Muslim beliefs being applied through the law. Muslim principles, he argued, require Muslims to believe in one God and to commit to obeying the law in the country where they live.

So you're saying Sharia can work in a Western society, but this isn't Sharia so stop warrying about it? And about that obeying the law in the host country thing... let me rephrase that, "host" country carries such a parasitic implication, if the laws of the country of residence must be obeyed then what's all the brouhaha? Don't like Canadian law, don't live there.

I don't.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonS … 6-sun.html
]http://www.canoe.ca/NewsSta....tml

Alberta is unlikely to wade into the debate because "for better or worse, Alberta is less politically correct than Ontario and ... doesn't pander to religious demands," said University of Alberta law professor Annalise Acorn.

Ah, reason. Nice Province, Alberta. Lots of open spaces, beautiful landscapes, sensible people when you can find anyone. A bit cold for my tastes, but climate isn't everything.

As Mars enthusiasts can surely agree.

http://www.ccmw.com/ShariainCanada/Onta … sailed.htm
]http://www.ccmw.com/Shariai....htm

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p01s03-w … -woam.html

In short, Islamic law binding arbitration, in theory subordinate to Canadian law but only if appealed. What are the odds some immigrant woman from Iran is going to reject the decision and appeal to a Canadian court at the risk of being shunned by her community and being pummeled by her husband?

If people leave Islamic countries they presumably didn't like the way they were being run. So why introduce the same ideas? Is it just some sort of Islamo-masochism, or could it be that in many cases so-called "refugees", asylum seekers and such aren't immigrants at all, but colonists of a sort?

And if a Western nation is going to allow a defined community to live by its own laws outside of the nation's legal norms to some degree, why just Muslims? Why just religious groups? I hereby demand recognition of Fascist law from the Ontario government, we'll live in our own communities, mind our own business, it'll be great. Maybe expand at the expense of the Francophones from time to time, but if Muslim women can have their rights abrogated in the name of tolerance surely we could kick around the Quebecois a little? No one likes them anyway, making all the signs twice as long and those damn double-sided product labels.

The opinions expressed by Cobra in this post do not necessarily reflect the opinions of New Mars, it's members, or even Cobra himself. Sarcasm and satire filters not included.

And the trip through Bizzaro world continues...

C M Edwards · 2004-12-22 08:42:41

My two cents on Turkey's potential admission to the European Union:

Turkey won't be allowed to join until it both normalizes relations with Cypress and makes a definitive move toward resolving its land dispute with that country. No one in their right mind is going to admit a new EU member that not only refuses to recognize another current member in good standing but also has a dispute with them that could easily erupt into a military conflict between EU members. That's not going to happen.

However, I suspect that Turkey will resolve that dispute and sign on with the EU. The benefits of EU membership are much greater than anything it'll ever see from continuing its petty squabble with Cypress. Handled properly, it's a good resolution for all parties.

As for Turkey somehow being disqualified by being a predominantly Islamic country, I suspect that the real issue is that Turkey is not a predominantly Christian country. My sentiments about that are best summed up by the lyrics of a favorite song...

Istanbul, not Constantinople.
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople.
Been a long time gone, Constantinople.
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks.

Gennaro · 2004-12-22 16:27:58

Heavy post, Cobra. Well, as you know these things are possible because the prospect of being labelled a "racist" is still worse from the individual decision-maker's point of view. It simply slides - one handing over the hot potato to another - until the transition is fully implemented. Our system, since it's based on professional political career-making, breeds cowardice.

Islam is unable of peaceful multicultural co-existence. The core of the problem lies here:

Sharia is a centuries-old Islamic system of justice based on the precepts of the Koran.

The precepts of the Koran means the literal word of God. Break with those precepts and what are you but a heretic by definition? Which is punishable by death according to the same precepts. A perfect loop of the mind, this dynamic does not yield until Christians are relegated to the subservient status of Dhimmi within the framework of a Muslim dominated society, because that is also included in the precepts.

C M Edwards wrote:

As for Turkey somehow being disqualified by being a predominantly Islamic country, I suspect that the real issue is that Turkey is not a predominantly Christian country.

No, that's not it, on the contrary. The real issue in this regard is that Turkey is not a secular country. In Europe, religion and politics are traditionally kept well apart, no one cares if someone is a Hindu or a Jew. Pushing faith slogans would actually constitute campaign suicide, because in the judgement of the masses that's just hypocrisy or irrelevant at best, rather than like in certain parts of the US, where it's obviously an advantage or even a must to play the religious game.

Palomar · 2004-12-28 12:46:05

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … egays]Gays and non-Christians not wanted

*...even though they (the Christian campus club) would benefit from taxpayer money (which includes taxes FROM gay and non-Christian taxpayers of course).

:down:

Want to bet some of them enjoy looking at lesbian pornography though? :laugh:

Let these bigots entirely fund their own exclusive little holier-than-thou club.

After the university refused to recognize the group, the society's national headquarters in Washington, D.C., drafted a lawsuit challenging the university over its anti-discrimination policies, a move that echoes similar and sometimes successful efforts across the country.

Of course if someone sought to exclude them, they'd be screaming discrimination and "persecution"!

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2004-12-28 18:07:11

Yeah, and what happens when these righteous guys and gals leave university, marry within their holy group, and produce .. wait for it .. homosexual offspring!! {GASP!}
:laugh:

Some people!

Palomar · 2004-12-28 19:34:15

Yeah, and what happens when these righteous guys and gals leave university, marry within their holy group, and produce .. wait for it .. homosexual offspring!! {GASP!}
:laugh:
Some people!

*Yep, could happen. These folks may be at that age, though, where They Know Everything and also Life Will Entirely Turn Out As Anticipated. (Been there/done that).

Reminds me of a white supremacist I read about years ago. Fervent believer that all non-whites, retarded people, disabled people or folks with a birth defect (regardless of race) were "defective" and should be killed. Then his firstborn (a boy) was born with a cleft lip and palate. He accepted his son of course, and was appalled when his "buddies" told him his kid was defective and he should kill him. I guess he didn't realize the hatred could apply to him some day! That was a wake-up call (better late than never, I suppose); he dropped his beliefs, packed up his family and left pronto. Thank goodness he at least had enough insight and sense to spare his son's life and get out of that "lifestyle"! :-\

As for that campus group, methinks they surely flatter themselves quite a lot to assume they *must* bar non-believers from joining their little cabal.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-28 20:22:50

Whoa, hold on here. The problem isn't that a campus group doesn't want to admit gays, they can hold whatever beliefs they want and are free to associate with like-minded people. The real issue here is that they want to do it while getting money from the university. Discrimination is only a secondary issue in the shadow of public funds used for private purposes.

So what the hell is the university doing funding any of these little clubs? Like so many of these "discrimination" cases, the real solution is stunningly simple. In this case, no university funding for any of the mutual admiration societies on campus, let them fund themselves and in so doing admit or deny anyone they want.

Otherwise if these Christian fundies can't bar gays from their group than no campus group can bar anyone, thereby undermining the purpose of forming them in the first place.

But no, they'll take it to court, wasting even more of other people's money. Way to go for moral justice eh?

DonPanic · 2004-12-28 20:23:06

Islam is unable of peaceful multicultural co-existence. The core of the problem lies here:
Sharia is a centuries-old Islamic system of justice based on the precepts of the Koran.
The precepts of the Koran means the literal word of God. Break with those precepts and what are you but a heretic by definition? Which is punishable by death according to the same precepts

LO
That's not all true. You do forget the many early christian communities settled in the whole middle-est, which lived peacefully with Muslims for centuries, you do forget that the Jews thrown out of Spain could settle in Morroco and in Algeria.
In the Koran, the prophet orders that Jews and Christians are to be respected.

The settlement of muslim origin people in Europe is a recent phenomenum, the eldest children of that immigration wave are about twenty. They have been aculturated and there is actualy a rediscovery of their parents' culture. Things may go bad if they are considered as second class citizens.

I'm optimistic because less than a dozen scilly teen girls out of the many hundred thousand arab ad turkish origin people living in France refused to submit to french law on no veil in public schools.

When they will get older, I'm quite sure they will appreciate the possibility of divorce and the laws' protection against their men's brutality. They will have children and will teach them that republic's law can protect them from the "sharia".

And I tell you this as a very atheistic and anticlerical man :;):

So, in France, I am among the minority which would vote for Turkey in Europe, after all, geneticaly speaking, they are really similar to the Greeks...

Palomar · 2004-12-28 21:44:51

The real issue here is that they want to do it while getting money from the university. Discrimination is only a secondary issue in the shadow of public funds used for private purposes.
So what the hell is the university doing funding any of these little clubs? Like so many of these "discrimination" cases, the real solution is stunningly simple. In this case, no university funding for any of the mutual admiration societies on campus, let them fund themselves

*Exactly. I pointed that out in my first post on the matter, i.e.: "even though they (the Christian campus club) would benefit from taxpayer money (which includes taxes FROM gay and non-Christian taxpayers of course)."

These folks have a lot of nerve, geez. I guess it's "okay" when they do it (of course, of course).

It'd be like a neighborhood demanding my city gov't place permanent roadblock signs at each end of an avenue, to prevent certain types of people from driving down a
public, taxpayer-funded road; the neighborhood chooses who can use the road, and other taxpayers may be excluded.

I don't think so.

Yep, if they want to be exclusive, they can pay their own damned costs 100%.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-12-29 10:49:28

So, in France, I am among the minority which would vote for Turkey in Europe, after all, geneticaly speaking, they are really similar to the Greeks...

Do not say this to a Greek. . . :;):

DonPanic · 2004-12-29 11:36:28

So, in France, I am among the minority which would vote for Turkey in Europe, after all, geneticaly speaking, they are really similar to the Greeks...
Do not say this to a Greek. . . :;):

LO
Didn't Greeks spoke the same language as Trojans ?
With Alexander, didn't Greeks invade Turkey and ruled from Macedonia to Indus ?

BWhite · 2004-12-29 23:23:35

So, in France, I am among the minority which would vote for Turkey in Europe, after all, geneticaly speaking, they are really similar to the Greeks...
Do not say this to a Greek. . . :;):
LO
Didn't Greeks spoke the same language as Trojans ?
With Alexander, didn't Greeks invade Turkey and ruled from Macedonia to Indus ?

I am not Greek, nor do I disagree. The Greek-Americans I do know, they would disagree most strenously.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-31 03:31:37

I've been to Greece a few times, and the Greeks I spoke to did not look to kindly on the Turks. Despite any similarities they would not make for happy partners in the EU.

Graeme

DonPanic · 2004-12-31 04:17:47

I've been to Greece a few times, and the Greeks I spoke to did not look to kindly on the Turks. Despite any similarities they would not make for happy partners in the EU.
Graeme

LO
In 1945, who would have bet a dime on Germany and France teaming to build Europe ?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-31 04:20:51

In 1945, who would have bet a dime on Germany and France teaming to build Europe ?

True but the Greek/Turk divide is deeper and goes back a lot longer.

Graeme

DonPanic · 2004-12-31 04:43:01

LO
I think that the muslim minority living in Grece and the orthodox minority leaving in Turkey can do a lot for mutual understanding of Grece and Turkey

French history books tell the Gallish German conflicts up to Cesar allied to german cavalery...
but that has nothing to see with french german state conflicts
nor persan kings trying to invade Hellas
Could greek nationalism based on deep history reminds lead to some kind of fascist like state of mind similar to Benito's pretention to restore roman grandeur ?

Gennaro · 2004-12-31 05:14:42

That's not all true. You do forget the many early christian communities settled in the whole middle-est, which lived peacefully with Muslims for centuries, you do forget that the Jews thrown out of Spain could settle in Morroco and in Algeria.

Christian communities didn't settle in the Middle-East, they were there to begin with, before the Arab conquest. The highly marginal Jews are often a special case and their lot in Europe could often be worse than under Muslim rule, but Muslim Spain certainly was no paradise for Christians most of the time (who by numbers were by far most important competitor) and occaisonally neither for the Jews.

* EDIT: By "heretic" I was naturally referring to Muslims denouncing the Word of God. It kind of goes with the meaning of the word that you can't be a heretic to anything if you're an infidel.

In the Koran, the prophet orders that Jews and Christians are to be respected.

Yes, as second class citizens, ordained so by God, historically interrupted by periods of persecution. Go to Iraq and ask people how fun they think it is trying to be Christian these days. They actually cancelled Christmas this year.

The settlement of muslim origin people in Europe is a recent phenomenum, the eldest children of that immigration wave are about twenty.

So much the less reason to let them stay.

They have been aculturated and there is actualy a rediscovery of their parents' culture. Things may go bad if they are considered as second class citizens.

Things go bad in any case and "acculturated" isn't really the word I'd choose. I'm not planning to consider anyone a second-class citizen, I am prepared to retract citizenship for those who clearly do not deserve it and repatriate anyone who never was a refugee to begin with or in the intervening time has ceased to be one.

Didn't Greeks spoke the same language as Trojans ?
With Alexander, didn't Greeks invade Turkey and ruled from Macedonia to Indus?

How is Alexander in any case relevant to this discussion? The Persians roll back effected by Alexander did take place across lands in Anatolia that were Greek to begin with, yes. No Turkey existed in those days and wouldn't for over a thousand years, hence he couldn't have "invaded" any "Turkey" unless he extended his expansion to somewhere north of the Great Wall of China.

DonPanic · 2004-12-31 15:12:51

Christian communities didn't settle in the Middle-East, they were there to begin with, before the Arab conquest. The highly marginal Jews are often a special case and their lot in Europe could often be worse than under Muslim rule, but Muslim Spain certainly was no paradise for Christians most of the time (who by numbers were by far most important competitor) and occaisonally neither for the Jews.

I never said that christians communities settled in muslim land, you can't learn me that Islam spread at first in early chriistian lands.
If you know Spain history, you don't ignore that they were christians princes allied with muslim chiefs against other christian princes, that El Andalous has been the most civilised kingdom of theses times, with students coming from all Europe to learn astronomy, math and medecine in the spanish muslim universities.
Alhambra Palace contains mosaïcs whose mathematic laws have been resolved only by Roger Penrose in 1974.

In the Koran, the prophet orders that Jews and Christians are to be respected.
Yes, as second class citizens, ordained so by God, historically interrupted by periods of persecution. Go to Iraq and ask people how fun they think it is trying to be Christian these days. They actually cancelled Christmas this year.

If Christians in Mesopotamia had been persecuted as you say, they would have gone for long. The fact is that they had nothing to fear whem Saddam Hussein was in power.
There is no need to be a christian to be endangered in actual Irak, muslims are the first victims of the terrorists' madness.

The settlement of muslim origin people in Europe is a recent phenomenum, the eldest children of that immigration wave are about twenty.
So much the less reason to let them stay.

Such a general judgement on muslims is deep racism. How do you manage to make them go ? a final solution ?

They have been aculturated and there is actualy a rediscovery of their parents' culture. Things may go bad if they are considered as second class citizens.
Things go bad in any case and "acculturated" isn't really the word I'd choose. I'm not planning to consider anyone a second-class citizen, I am prepared to retract citizenship for those who clearly do not deserve it and repatriate anyone who never was a refugee to begin with or in the intervening time has ceased to be one.

Sure these people must be ALL treated as rats...they don't even have blond hairs

Didn't Greeks spoke the same language as Trojans ?
With Alexander, didn't Greeks invade Turkey and ruled from Macedonia to Indus?
How is Alexander in any case relevant to this discussion? The Persians roll back effected by Alexander did take place across lands in Anatolia that were Greek to begin with, yes. No Turkey existed in those days and wouldn't for over a thousand years, hence he couldn't have "invaded" any "Turkey" unless he extended his expansion to somewhere north of the Great Wall of China

You make me a nasty prosecution for using the actual geographic name for the turkish territory, in history part of persian empire. The idea is that Turks and Greeks can have the same origin, the ones which live on the turkish shore having been islamised while the ones living on the greek shore stayed orthodox.

Gennaro · 2005-01-01 02:32:33

I never said that christians communities settled in muslim land, you can't learn me that Islam spread at first in early chriistian lands.
If you know Spain history, you don't ignore that they were christians princes allied with muslim chiefs against other christian princes, that El Andalous has been the most civilised kingdom of theses times, with students coming from all Europe to learn astronomy, math and medecine in the spanish muslim universities.
Alhambra Palace contains mosaïcs whose mathematic laws have been resolved only by Roger Penrose in 1974.

Well, everything is relative I guess.

If Christians in Mesopotamia had been persecuted as you say, they would have gone for long.

Nonsense.

The fact is that they had nothing to fear whem Saddam Hussein was in power.
There is no need to be a christian to be endangered in actual Irak, muslims are the first victims of the terrorists' madness.

Sure, I deplore the present situation in Iraq nearly as much as you do, my Muslim friend.

Such a general judgement on muslims is deep racism. How do you manage to make them go ? a final solution ?

Racism has nothing to do with it. Don't even try pulling the rasict card on me, it won't have its prescribed effect. We're far beyond that sort of discourse.

Sure these people must be ALL treated as rats...they don't even have blond hairs.

Either you understand what citizenship and the social contract in a very basic, Enlightenment way, is, or you don't, Muslim!

You make me a nasty prosecution for using the actual geographic name for the turkish territory, in history part of persian empire. The idea is that Turks and Greeks can have the same origin, the ones which live on the turkish shore having been islamised while the ones living on the greek shore stayed orthodox.

"Nasty prosecution"? What colour could such strange animal be? I merely quote directly out of the textbooks of history. Have a go at those some time.
Turks and Greeks could have the same origin to the extent that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Turks committed mass rape of Christian women after Manzikert or the fall of Constantinople, otherwise I'd hardly bet on it to any larger extent. They belong to mutually exlusive religions as far as marriage goes, you see.

It feels strange beginning New Years Day on New Mars writing a post like this, but anyway, there it is.

DonPanic · 2005-01-01 04:45:36

Turks and Greeks could have the same origin to the extent that it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Turks committed mass rape of Christian women after Manzikert or the fall of Constantinople, otherwise I'd hardly bet on it to any larger extent. They belong to mutually exlusive religions as far as marriage goes, you see.

LO
You're calling me a muslim
I've no God, nor master, I eat pork, therefore, to the eyes of a muslim, I should be someone to destroy
If you know history, Byzance or Constantinople has been assaulted by crusaders (1204) on their way to Palestine, orthodox christian women raped by roman catholic warriors from all parts of Europe far before the fall of Contantinople, so, the Turks have no monopoly on wildery and cruelty
And centuries before, northern men you are so proud of nowadays commited the same kind of devastation on European coasts, fiercely drinking in the skulls of they beheaded ennemies.
Do these historic reminds make of you the same as them ?

You are who you are, no one is loading you with the delivery of sweedish steel to nazi wermacht during WWII,
but you actually jugde today's Turks for the behaviour of far ancestors, don't you ?

In spite of theses arguments

Happy new year ! Skoll *!

(*know what I mean )

Gennaro · 2005-01-01 08:35:29

You're calling me a muslim

I took a wild guess. Did you mind?

If you know history, Byzance or Constantinople has been assaulted by crusaders (1204) on their way to Palestine, orthodox christian women raped by roman catholic warriors from all parts of Europe far before the fall of Contantinople, so, the Turks have no monopoly on wildery and cruelty
And centuries before, northern men you are so proud of nowadays commited the same kind of devastation on European costs, fiercely drinking in the skulls of they beheaded ennemies.

You are absolutely right, forgive me. Yet note that I'm not preoccupied with some 'white pride' thing, or whatever. I'm not from there. My opinions are reactions upon a reality, not borne out of malice.

Do these historic reminds make of you the same as them ?
You are who you are, no one is loading you with the delivery of sweedish steel to nazi wermacht during WWII,
but you actually jugde today's Turks for the behaviour of far ancestors, don't you ?

Hmm, nah. It was just a way to illustrate that I believe the Greeks are right when they say they are essentially not Turkish, although some interaction is bound to happen when people live so close to each other.

In spite of theses arguments
Happy new year ! Skoll *!

And a happy New Year to you, DP! Hope you're enjoying the festivities, despite the horrendous disaster in the Indian Ocean.

*know what I mean

Yes. Had actually been a long night when I wrote the above.
Salut!

DonPanic · 2005-01-01 16:05:42

LO

You're calling me a muslim
I took a wild guess. Did you mind?

Not at all, I'm ashamed my government isn't as generous as your's to help tsumami victims

Yet note that I'm not preoccupied with some 'white pride' thing, or whatever. I'm not from there. My opinions are reactions upon a reality, not borne out of malice.

I took good notice and I'm really sorry for former wrong accusations at you.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-12-17 17:12:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#52 2004-12-17 22:19:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#53 2004-12-22 02:53:02

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#54 2004-12-22 07:19:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#55 2004-12-22 08:42:41

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#56 2004-12-22 16:27:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#57 2004-12-28 12:46:05

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#58 2004-12-28 18:07:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#59 2004-12-28 19:34:15

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#60 2004-12-28 20:22:50

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#61 2004-12-28 20:23:06

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#62 2004-12-28 21:44:51

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#63 2004-12-29 10:49:28

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#64 2004-12-29 11:36:28

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#65 2004-12-29 23:23:35

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#66 2004-12-31 03:31:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#67 2004-12-31 04:17:47

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#68 2004-12-31 04:20:51

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#69 2004-12-31 04:43:01

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#70 2004-12-31 05:14:42

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#71 2004-12-31 15:12:51

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#72 2005-01-01 02:32:33

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#73 2005-01-01 04:45:36

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#74 2005-01-01 08:35:29

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#75 2005-01-01 16:05:42

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer